Author
Topic: Should a bishop celebrating Divine Liturgy in a WR be allowed to wear a pallium? (Read 4974 times)

Should a bishop celebrating Divine Liturgy in a WR be allowed to wear a pallium?

If there will be a definitive answer(s) to this question - by doing it this way or that way - I thin this will be a crossroad of WR-orthodoxy, ..would show more of her selfunderstanding and in which direction it will develop, canonical and liturgical, than any other thing.

All bishops in the West wore them before the advent of papal supremacy in the mid 11th century, I thought. It's an omophorion, part of the bishop's garb. There's no liturgical distinction between bishops and archbishops or even patriarchs/popes.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

All bishops in the West wore them before the advent of papal supremacy in the mid 11th century, I thought.

This is surely wrong. The traces of wearing it without having recieved it before from the patriarche (pope of Rome) are very, very little. The timeline: 4th/5th (if ever).

It is reserved to metropolits (the expections proof the rule) and not (only) a liturgical vestment, but (primaly) a "Rechtssmybol"..something juridical (though the original symbolism is theological: the good shepard).

Should a bishop celebrating Divine Liturgy in a WR be allowed to wear a pallium?

If there will be a definitive answer(s) to this question - by doing it this way or that way - I thin this will be a crossroad of WR-orthodoxy, ..would show more of her selfunderstanding and in which direction it will develop, canonical and liturgical, than any other thing.

Archbishop Scherr, of Munich, was a personal friend of Dr. Dollinger, and was at first one of the opponents of the dogma of infallibility. At the railway station of Munich, as he was starting to attend the Vatican Council, he assured Dr. D611inger that in 'he event (which the archbishop thought improbable) of the dogma being proposed in the Council, it should have his determined opposition. For a time the archbishop took his place among the minority of the Council, but he yielded at last, and excommunicated Dr. Dollinger for not following his example. Yet I never heard Dr. Dollinger speak bitterly of him. On the contrary, he made excuses for him j urged that he had acted under pressure from Rome; pleaded that he had more piety than strength of character; and declared that he was bound to act as he did, or resign his see. To illustrate the archbishop s esprit exalte", which subordinated his judgment to his religious emotions, Dr. Dollinger one day told me the following anecdote, on the authority of Archbishop Scherr himself. When the archbishop received information from Rome that he was to be presented with the archiepiscopal pallium on a given day, he immediately began to prepare himself for this great honor by devoting the interval to retirement and religious exercises. The pallium is generally, but not invariably, made by the nuns of one of the Roman convents from the wool of lambs kept on purpose — a fact which added to the honor of the gift. On the stated day, the archbishop's servant announced the arrival of the messenger with the pall. The archbishop expected a special envoy from the Vatican and a formal investituretsanctified by the papal benediction, instead of which there walked into his presence a Jewish banker with a bundle under his arm, out of which he presently produced the pall with a bill for £200. Keenly as Dr. Dollinger entered into the humor of the story, he really told it as an illustration of the archbishop's simplicity of character, and by way of excusing his conduct in excommunicating himself. "To him," he said, " the dogma presents no insuperable difficulty, and he cannot understand why it should present any to me. He bows to authority, and cannot see that authority has no more to do with historical facts than it has to do with mathematical facts." He was always prone to make excuses for the bishops who accepted the dogma of infallibility—even for those who had been among its most prominent opponents at the Vatican Council. He snowed me once a letter from one of the latter, in which the writer—a distinguished prelate — declared that he was in sad perplexity. He had proclaimed the dogma, he said, while stiU remaining in the same mind in which he had opposed it at the Council. "But what could I do?" he asked. "Can one be in the Church and be out of communion with the pope? Yet can it be right to proclaim what one does not believe? Such is my dilemma, and it has made me so unhappy that I have thought of resigning my see. On reflection, I nave chosen what 1 consider the safest course." "Allowance must be made for these men," said Dr. Dollinger. "Habit is second nature, and their mental attitude has been so invariably that of unquestioning obedience to papal authority, that when they have to choose between that authority and allegiance to what they believe to be historical truth, their second nature asserts itself and they yield."

On a subsequent occasion, I asked Dr. DOllinger if he thought the Bishop of Rottenourg (Dr. Hefele) would end by accepting the dogma. The case was in one way a crucial one. As an authority on the historical bearings of the question, Hefele was the best equipped man at the Council. His masterly "History of the Councils " is accepted as the standard authority on all hands. Not only did he oppose the dogma at the Vatican Council, but during the sitting of the Council he published, through the Neapolitan press, a pamphlet against it, basing his opposition on the example of Honorius as a test case. Perrone, the great theologian of the Roman College, and a strong Infallibilist, has laid it down in his standard work on "Dogmatic Theology," that if only one pope can be proved to have given, ex cathedrd, a heterodox decision on faith or morals, the whole doctrine collapses. Hefele accordingly took the case of Honorius, and proved that this pope had been condemned as a heretic by popes and oecumenical councils. Pennachi, professor of church history in Rome, replied to Hefele, and Hefele returned to the charge in a rejoinder so powerful that he was left master of the field. If therefore Hefele, so honest as well as so able and learned, accepted the dogma, it was not likely that any other bishop of the minority would hold out. "He must yield," said Dr. Dollinger to me, three months after the prorogation of the Vatican Council, "or resign his see. His quinquennial faculties have expired and the pope refuses to renew them until Hefele accepts the decree. At this moment there are nineteen couples of rank in his diocese who cannot get married because they are within the forbidden degrees, and Hefele cannot grant them dispensations." "But since he denies the pope's infallibility," I asked, "why does he not himself grant the necessary dispensations?" "My friend," replied Dollinger, "you forget that the members of the Church of Rome have been brought up in the belief that a dispensation is not valid without these papal faculties, and a marriage under any other dispensation would not be acknowledged in society." The event proved that DSllinger was right. The quinquennial faculties are a tremendous power in the hands of the pope. They are, in fact, papal licenses, renewed every five years, which enable the bishops to exercise extraordinary episcopal functions that ordinarily belong to the pope, such as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, obligations of fasting, prohibition of marriage within the prohibited degrees, and also the power to permit the reading of prohibited books. It is obvious that the extinction of the quinquennial faculties in a diocese means the paralysis in a short time of its ordinary administration. It amounts to a sort of modified interdict. And so Dr. Hefele soon discovered. The dogma was proclaimed in the Vatican Council on the iSth of July, 1870, and on the 10th of the following April Hefele submitted. But he was too honest to let it be inferred that his submission was due to any change of conviction. He deemed it his duty to submit in spite of his convictions, because "the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it." Bishop Strossmayer held out longest of all; but he yielded at last, so far as to allow the dogma to be published in the official gazette of his diocese during his absence in Rome. Nevertheless, he remained to the last on the most friendly terms with Dr. Dollinger, and it was to a letter from Dr. Dollinger that I was indebted for a most interesting visit to Bishop Strossmayer in Croatia in 1876.

To some able and honest minds Dr. Dollinger's attitude on the question of infallibility is a puzzle. His refusal to accept the dogma, while he submitted meekly to an excommunication which he believed to be unjust, seems to them an inconsistency. This view is put forward in an interesting article on Dr. Dollinger in the Spectator of last January 18, and, as it is a view which is probably held by many, I quote the gist of the article before I tryto show what Dr. Dollinger's point of view really was: —

There was something very English in Dr. Dollinger's illogical pertinacity in holding his own position on points of detail, in spite of the inconsistency of that position on points of detail with the logic of his general creed. He was, in fact, more tenacious of what his historical learning had taught him, than he was of the a priori position which he had previously assumed — namely, that a true Church must be infallible, and that his Church was actually infallible. No one had taught this more distinctly than Dr. Dollinger. Yet first iie found one erroneous drift in the practical teaching of his Church, then hefound another, and then when at last his Church formally declared that the true providential guarantee of her infallibility extended only to the Papal definition of any dogma touching faith and morals promulgated with a view to teach the Church, he ignored that decree, though it was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous as well as one of the most numerously attended of her Councils, and preferred to submit to excommunication rather than to profess his acceptance of it. And then later he came, we believe, to declare that he was no more bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent than be was by the decrees of the Council of the Vatican. None the less he always submitted to the disciplinary authority of the Church, even after he had renounced virtually her dogmatic authority. He never celebrated mass nor assumed any of the functions of a priest after his excommunication. In other words, he obeyed the Church in matters in which no one had ever claimed for her that she could not err, after he had ceased to obey htr in matters in which he had formerly taught that she could not err, and in which, so far as we know, he had only in his latter years taught that she could err by explicitly rejecting the decrees of one or two General Councils. . . . When she said to him, "Don't celebrate mass any more," he seems to have regarded himself as more bound to obey her than when she said to him, "Believe what I teil you."

Dr. Dollinger would not have accepted this as an accurate statement of his position. He would have denied that the dogma of infallibility "was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous" of the Church's Councils, and would have pointed to the protest of more than eighty of the most learned and influential bishops in the Roman communion, whose subsequent submission he would have discounted for reasons already indicated. And he would have been greatly surprised to be told that it was as easy to obey the command, "Believe what I tell you," as the command " Don't celebrate mass any more." I remember a pregnant remark of Cardinal Newman's to myself at the time of Dr. Dollinger's excommunication, of which be disapproved, though accepting the dogma himself. "There are some," he said, " who think that it is as easy to believe as to obey; that is to say, they do not understand what faith really means." To obey the sentence of excommunication was in no sense a moral difficulty to Dr. Dollinger. He believed it unjust and therefore invalid, and he considered himself under no obligation in foro conscientice to obey it. He did not believe that it cut him off from membership with the Church of Rome; and he once resented in a letter to me an expression which implied that he had ceased to be a member of the Roman Communion. He submitted to the sentence of excommunication as a matter of discipline, a cross which he was providentially ordained to bear. It involved nothing more serious than personal sacrifice — submission to a wrong arbitrarily inflicted by an authority to which obedience was due where conscience did not forbid. "Believe what I tell you" was a very different command, and could only be obeyed when the intellect could conscientiously accept the proposition. To bid him believe not only as an article of faith but as an historical fact what he firmly believed to be an historical fiction was to him an outrage on his intellectual integrity. For let it be remembered that the Vatican decree defines the dogma of papal infallibility not merely as part of the contents of divine revelation, but, in addition, as a fact of history "received from the beginning of the Christian faith." It challenged the ordeal of historical criticism, and made thus an appeal to enlightened reason not less than to faith. To demand belief in a proposition that lies beyond the compass of the human understanding is one thing. It is quite another matter to demand belief in a statement the truth or falsehood of which is purely a matter of historical evidence. If Dr. D61linger had been asked to believe, on pain of excommunication, that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell, the able writer in the Spectator would readily understand how easy submission to an unjust excommunication would have been in comparison with obedience to such a command. But to Dr. DOllinger's mind the proposition that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell would not be a bit more preposterous, not a bit more in the teeth of historical evidence, than the proposition that "from the beginning of the Christian faith," it was an accepted article of the creed of Christendom that when the Roman pontiff speaks to the Church ex cathedrd on faith or morals, his utterances are infallible, and "are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." He was firmly convinced of the contradictory of that proposition, and while he remained of that mind how could he have honestly professed his acceptance of the dogma? The appeal was not to his faith, but to his reason. It was, as he said himself, like asking him to believe that two and two make five.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Should a bishop celebrating Divine Liturgy in a WR be allowed to wear a pallium?

If there will be a definitive answer(s) to this question - by doing it this way or that way - I thin this will be a crossroad of WR-orthodoxy, ..would show more of her selfunderstanding and in which direction it will develop, canonical and liturgical, than any other thing.

The pallium? No, as that is a uniquely Roman vestment tied to the Pope of Rome. The omophor? Yes, to show his communion with Orthodoxy. It should be noted that the Copts, Ethiopians, and Assyrians also lack the omophor/pallium.

Should a bishop celebrating Divine Liturgy in a WR be allowed to wear a pallium?

If there will be a definitive answer(s) to this question - by doing it this way or that way - I thin this will be a crossroad of WR-orthodoxy, ..would show more of her selfunderstanding and in which direction it will develop, canonical and liturgical, than any other thing.

The pallium? No, as that is a uniquely Roman vestment tied to the Pope of Rome. The omophor? Yes, to show his communion with Orthodoxy. It should be noted that the Copts, Ethiopians, and Assyrians also lack the omophor/pallium.

Pallium / Omophorion: is it (basically) the same or is it not?

I would say yes. And an Eastern Bishop cannot impose himself the omophor (except the patriarch), like in the West. The difference is, that in the West it is (was) - despite some privileged bishops, like the one of Bamberg - reserved for metropolitans and restricted for use only in Masses and only on special days (sollemnities).

To sum up the pallium was an ornament of metropolitans given to perhaps from early times by the patriarchs and by the Pope in that comparatively narrow district which was his most immediate supervision the Pope gave it to his vicars in parts then as a mark of special dignity to some bishops then he required Western metropolitans to ask it before exercising their functions and finally the rule extended even to patriarchs

I would suggest that he continue to wear the omophorion he already wears over either the byzantine or Latin rite vestments, because I agree that they are the same vestment, only different styles. This is quite an interesting question !! The paradox of diverging developments for the same vestment presents itself as confusing when the two rites try to come into harmony with each other.

The issue would seemingly be more confusing were there to be bishops who are exclusively ordained for the latin/western rite of Orthodoxy. While, they would by the the basic nature of the tradition of this particular church, not need a pallium or have traditionally one that is necessary, they could be given one as an honour by the ecumenical or other Patriarch . This would serve a useful purpose because it would make it clear to the byzantine rite laity that they are bishops of the same status as byzantine rite bishops. So much like the fact that married men are by default allowed as western rite orthodox priests when they had not been within the Pope of Rome since the 5th century granted this custom. Married priests could legitimately be called a revival of an earlier practice (as mentioned by St. Patrick in his confessio that he is the son of a deacon and grandson of a presbyter), the use of pallium by regular bishops could be seen as harmonization as mutually enriching practice of the byzantine rite, applied to the latin rite. A "byzantization" probably it would be, but does that mean it is a bad idea developing? Not necessarily, though certainly this concept is controversial , it is not something absolutely taboo.

It is very true that the average bishop did not wear a pallium in the west.However, before the 12th century there were hundreds of bishops who were given the pallium as a special honour. This is the practice that disappeared largely after the centralization/authoritarian policies of the gregorian reform manifested themselves. I know this because the iconography of manuscripts and frescos of this time period shows a greater frequency of bishops wearing them than does iconography from after the 13th century, when gothic/humanism/scholastic influences combined to transform and wash away key elements of the earlier latin church traditions. It was particularly common for a great number of the non-metropolitan bishops who became saints to have been bestowed an honourary pallium. This also is partly why they became saints, they were already acknolwedged as being very loyal and holy, therefore they had a pallium. The clergies favourites often had an easier time being canonized more quickly than those that were not their favourite.

Therefore if hundreds of bishops were bestowed the pallium as special honour, it could I think be argued to be possible to be a development within Orthodoxy that all were granted it, though by no means would it have been tradition for typical latin bishops in ages past to have had this, only exceptional ones.

I once read a very good detailed enclycopedia article on the pallium. It is a little known, frequently misunderstood vestment, especially it's history before 1054. The subject deserves further study by others.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 02:26:41 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

To sum up the pallium was an ornament of metropolitans given to perhaps from early times by the patriarchs and by the Pope in that comparatively narrow district which was his most immediate supervision the Pope gave it to his vicars in parts then as a mark of special dignity to some bishops then he required Western metropolitans to ask it before exercising their functions and finally the rule extended even to patriarchs

I would suggest that he continue to wear the omophorion he already wears over either the byzantine or Latin rite vestments, because I agree that they are the same vestment, only different styles. This is quite an interesting question !! The paradox of diverging developments for the same vestment presents itself as confusing when the two rites try to come into harmony with each other.

The issue would seemingly be more confusing were there to be bishops who are exclusively ordained for the latin/western rite of Orthodoxy. While, they would by the the basic nature of the tradition of this particular church, not need a pallium or have traditionally one that is necessary, they could be given one as an honour by the ecumenical or other Patriarch . This would serve a useful purpose because it would make it clear to the byzantine rite laity that they are bishops of the same status as byzantine rite bishops. So much like the fact that married men are by default allowed as western rite orthodox priests when they had not been within the Pope of Rome since the 5th century granted this custom. Married priests could legitimately be called a revival of an earlier practice (as mentioned by St. Patrick in his confessio that he is the son of a deacon and grandson of a presbyter), the use of pallium by regular bishops could be seen as harmonization as mutually enriching practice of the byzantine rite, applied to the latin rite. A "byzantization" probably it would be, but does that mean it is a bad idea developing? Not necessarily, though certainly this concept is controversial , it is not something absolutely taboo.

It is very true that the average bishop did not wear a pallium in the west.However, before the 12th century there were hundreds of bishops who were given the pallium as a special honour. This is the practice that disappeared largely after the centralization/authoritarian policies of the gregorian reform manifested themselves. I know this because the iconography of manuscripts and frescos of this time period shows a greater frequency of bishops wearing them than does iconography from after the 13th century, when gothic/humanism/scholastic influences combined to transform and wash away key elements of the earlier latin church traditions. It was particularly common for a great number of the non-metropolitan bishops who became saints to have been bestowed an honourary pallium. This also is partly why they became saints, they were already acknolwedged as being very loyal and holy, therefore they had a pallium. The clergies favourites often had an easier time being canonized more quickly than those that were not their favourite.

Therefore if hundreds of bishops were bestowed the pallium as special honour, it could I think be argued to be possible to be a development within Orthodoxy that all were granted it, though by no means would it have been tradition for typical latin bishops in ages past to have had this, only exceptional ones.

I once read a very good detailed enclycopedia article on the pallium. It is a little known, frequently misunderstood vestment, especially it's history before 1054. The subject deserves further study by others.

Should a bishop celebrating Divine Liturgy in a WR be allowed to wear a pallium?

If there will be a definitive answer(s) to this question - by doing it this way or that way - I thin this will be a crossroad of WR-orthodoxy, ..would show more of her selfunderstanding and in which direction it will develop, canonical and liturgical, than any other thing.

The pallium? No, as that is a uniquely Roman vestment tied to the Pope of Rome. The omophor? Yes, to show his communion with Orthodoxy. It should be noted that the Copts, Ethiopians, and Assyrians also lack the omophor/pallium.

Pallium / Omophorion: is it (basically) the same or is it not?

That's something I wonder about.

One thing I've seen on the internet is the following from the calendar of the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburg:

Quote

June 29 – Friday Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul CHANCERY CLOSEDArchbishop William receives Pallium/Omophor in Rome

The tau shaped crozier is, as far as I know, rather exceptional and not particular common place in the west. Why this is I don't know.I have seen several examples from england, the victoria and albert museum and a few other british museums probably have a collection of at least 6 tau shaped croziers dating between the 9th to early 12th c.

Now, as for Ireland, the crozier seems to be more often of the crook sort from a very early date.

As far as I have seen, the tau shaped crozier is not particularly common in the west at early dates or even later, but the crook is.

I actually do not know why and am happy to admit it, but because the crook shape is very common, I would suggest that ought to have at the very least equal weight to the tau shape and possibly be considered the norm for most of the west. I may be wrong, that is all I know at this time.

So that bishop in the diagram, it is a legitimate 11th c. english bishop, no question about it. It would be normal for almost all the latin west at that time. The crozier is the only varying difference in other latin regions. by the beginning of the 12th c. between 3 or 4 slightly different mitres were being used simultaneously before being standardized into the modern mitre shape of today by the beginning of 13th c.

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

I'm only dissappointed that one who considers themselves a thinking traditionalist should take influence from "The Simpsons".Call me radical if you will, but the beliefs and views that the creator of that series surrounded himself with are very much anti-christian. Life is most certainly not "Hell", as his comic "Life is hell" suggested, life is actually "worth living".

« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 07:44:34 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

I'm only dissappointed that one who considers themselves a thinking traditionalist should take influence from "The Simpsons".Call me radical if you will, but the beliefs and views that the creator of that series surrounded himself with are very much anti-christian. Life is most certainly not "Hell", as his comic "Life is hell" suggested, life is actually "worth living".

I am a radical indeed. A radical distributist. (distributistreview.com)

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

The average lay catholic is not educated enough to know what a pallium is to be offended by it.The ones who are more educated or traditional (especially post-reformation version of traditional) might be bothered, but so far they arent particularly powerful or able to exert their influence. Reunification of the SSPX should that be possible will still not change that. The Pope is surrounded by Wolves and is himself too much a product and believer in these experimental ideas (thus Assisi.)

Minor vestment rubrics dont create scandals. What is in the Latin churches own history as permissiable is impossible to be offensive unless one is disconnected from history.

Maybe in another era something that minor would have been offensive, say in the year 1812. In the current era coming out of "vatican II" experimentatation it is quite unnoticeable amongst the panaopoly of oddball innovations one encounters in the Latin papal parishes.

(Judging from the church I visited today some are still very blatantly keeping this problematic iconoclastic pseudo protestantism alive and well ! - the church had no images, priests vesments came out of a gumby and poky show, was referred to not as "church but as "community" both on their sign and by priest, everyone was welcomed to sit and relax, the easy listening music used in liturgy, no mention of renouncing satan for baptism in their bizarre water fountain/swimming pool baptistry - every single book in the library was written by either scott hahn or some other EWTN celebrity/convert).

« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 12:17:17 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

If Fr. Aidan is still reading this, could he or anyone suggest where I would turn to find out what the typical crozier shape for latin bishops before 1100 tended to be? Which books, journals, dissertations is this info found in? That is a form of minutiae which holds importance and interest to me personally. I had never considered it before now. I am genuinely surprised if the "tau shape" is the earliest shape for croziers everywhere.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

If Fr. Aidan is still reading this, could he or anyone suggest where I would turn to find out what the typical crozier shape for latin bishops before 1100 tended to be? Which books, journals, dissertations is this info found in? That is a form of minutiae which holds importance and interest to me personally. I had never considered it before now. I am genuinely surprised if the "tau shape" is the earliest shape for croziers everywhere.

The average lay catholic is not educated enough to know what a pallium is to be offended by it.The ones who are more educated or traditional (especially post-reformation version of traditional) might be bothered, but so far they arent particularly powerful or able to exert their influence. Reunification of the SSPX should that be possible will still not change that. The Pope is surrounded by Wolves and is himself too much a product and believer in these experimental ideas (thus Assisi.)

Minor vestment rubrics dont create scandals. What is in the Latin churches own history as permissiable is impossible to be offensive unless one is disconnected from history.

Maybe in another era something that minor would have been offensive, say in the year 1812. In the current era coming out of "vatican II" experimentatation it is quite unnoticeable amongst the panaopoly of oddball innovations one encounters in the Latin papal parishes.

(Judging from the church I visited today some are still very blatantly keeping this problematic iconoclastic pseudo protestantism alive and well ! - the church had no images, priests vesments came out of a gumby and poky show, was referred to not as "church but as "community" both on their sign and by priest, everyone was welcomed to sit and relax, the easy listening music used in liturgy, no mention of renouncing satan for baptism in their bizarre water fountain/swimming pool baptistry - every single book in the library was written by either scott hahn or some other EWTN celebrity/convert).

Was this parish you describe in Denver, by chance? Because you perfectly described my best friend's Catholic parish - "Catholic Community" instead of "Church," decorative fountain thing as the baptismal font, no imagery or even statuary, bandstand and drum set in the choir's place...

This is the church I was referring to. Visiting the web site can not adequately replace visiting in person, but some of evidence of what I mentioned is evident through the digital medium.

The sad truth is that probably several hundred or thousand churches fit the description I gave. An associate of mine lives in france.

I was contemplating which is worse, the french society where they dont attend church at all, but maintain through civic organizations meticulous care over all historic churches or the USA society where they knock down old churches, build new ones and continue to attend yet claim it as "the true faith" with much of the substance, beauty and tradition missing.

I almost think france is better...

Sometimes older ethnic enclaves are better at preserving things as they were before.

Thus you see examples such as "Our Lady of Mt. Carmel" in 115th St. NYC, littly italy section, where they consistently allowed and have mantained sucessful attendance at the tridentine latin mass since 1988 broken only for a brief 15 year period in the 70's and early 80's:

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

This reminded me of Fr. Aidan's original picture for some reason.The mitre in particular that he chose was the dominant mitre shape for much of the german speaking regions until after 1200.It's a very interesting mitre, it was used in england too, though I believe the normans displaced it with what was more the french style over time.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot